Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
general consensus was that it was a worthless read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where were you guys when I wrote stinging reviews of this book and read about how much of an idiot I am?

I admit that I wrote the review in the psych forum a few years back. They did NOT appreciate my thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hehe ... well here in the books forum, I've always flamed this book (that and the suzuki ... from an otherwise excellent 2+2 library)

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say the main value is earning to recognize your opponents' styles and more importantly your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

the way the book categorizes your opponents' styles is a major problem according to some critics. if nearly all your opponents are seeing 90% of the flops and one opponent "only" sees 80% then that one opponent is a "tight" player according to this book.

the same flawed reasoning also applies when the book teaches you how to recognize your own playing style.

Re: psychology of poker
 

If you want a sample of Dr. Al's writing, there is plenty of free stuff in CP.

Re: psychology of poker
 

I think this is a book that every poker player should read early. There are plenty of books to help you with strategy but this book can fill some other voids. If you're at all familiar with psychology you might have heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The pinnacle of the hierarchy is self-actualization. This book can bring you closer to self-actualization in a poker sense. It's important to understand the things Dr. Schoonmaker describes in this book. The fact that so many people give it such a bad rep on this forum leads me to believe the quality of regular posters we have is continuing to decline. How can so many read a book about poker psychology and then trash it when they know little to nothing about psychology?

Re: psychology of poker
 

I think that many posters have a pop psych. I study Jungian psychology, and whatever model works for people is what works for them. If they cannot agree with his thinking, then that is on them.

My reviews were not pleasant, but I exaggerate when I say they were stinging. I basically said that much of it was common sense and a safe read. As in, you could not possibly disagree with it. I think that something that will not make you think is less valuable than something that you may disagree with when you are talking about soft science.

When you read a real psych book, you will disagree with it at one point, or accept the harsh reality it is trying to present. This is why there are several camps of psychology.

I do not like POP because it does not present anything that cannot be found with simple common sense, cannot be argued with, and does not challenge the reader to think.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can so many read a book about poker psychology and then trash it when they know little to nothing about psychology?

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps people are trashing its non-psychological advice. when the book might lead you to conclude a player who sees 80% of the flops is a "tight" player, then that is just wrong. and theres plenty of other bad strategy suggestions as well.

Re: psychology of poker
 

You make some very valid points. I wish others were as descriptive when stating their opinions. I think that we can all agree that this book, like most others, will be valued differently by readers. That is a fact that I believe should be stated when recommending it or not. Posts that say something like "worthless" and not much else give the person posting the question very little to work with and are, of course, completely incorrect. It may have been worthless to them, but the person looking for opinions may find it to be the most valuable book they've read. What's common sense to one may be rocket science to another.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can so many read a book about poker psychology and then trash it when they know little to nothing about psychology?

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps people are trashing its non-psychological advice. when the book might lead you to conclude a player who sees 80% of the flops is a "tight" player, then that is just wrong. and theres plenty of other bad strategy suggestions as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case it should be clearly stated in their post.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that we can all agree that this book, like most others, will be valued differently by readers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Trial by fire. If you like it, great. If not, return it. I do not think that this book should be weighted on any of the strategy advice it is giving (I doubt it says an 80% vpip is tight), but how useful the concepts are to you. This book is very helpful to some, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I can't comment on the strat advice because it has been a long time since I looked at it. I don't think it had any, and I doubt Mason and co. would allow blatant inaccuracies go to print, especially since this book is geared toward a limit player, their expertise.

As an example of what may be obvious to me, but not so much to someone else:

POP talks about the Stone Cold Killer, and how this sort of player could improve not only his game, but how to maintain a pleasant atmosphere. Many tight players have no chance of winning even a 2/4 game because he gets no action. There are plenty of people on the B&M forum that would have a large return on investment with this concept alone. To me, since I am such a nice person (?), how to play tight and not be a jerk is plainly obvious, so it holds no benefit to me. I also understand that being civil, not complaining, and holding an actual conversation with the scuzz balls at the table can be profitable. I don't really see people as scuzz balls. If you agreed with that sentence, then you are probably the target audience for this book.

Re: psychology of poker
 

Could it be that POP was written during a different time, does not translate to present day well, and people who don't like the book are judging it based on current conditions as opposed to looking at it from a historical perspective?